Menasha v. Hazard was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a municipal corporation. The case arose when the City of Menasha, Wisconsin, refused to pay a debt owed to the plaintiff, Hazard. Hazard then sought a writ of mandamus from the state court, which the City of Menasha argued was beyond the court's authority. The Supreme Court held that the state court did have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a municipal corporation. The Court reasoned that the writ of mandamus was a common law remedy that had been used for centuries and that the state court had the power to issue such a writ. Furthermore, the Court noted that the writ of mandamus was a necessary tool for ensuring that municipal corporations fulfilled their obligations. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a municipal corporation. The Court reasoned that the writ of mandamus was a necessary tool for ensuring that municipal corporations fulfilled their obligations and that the state court had the power to issue such a writ.

In Menasha v. Hazard, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a Wisconsin statute that allowed for the sale of certain property belonging to an insolvent corporation in order to pay its debts was constitutional. The majority opinion held that it was not, as it violated the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits states from passing laws impairing contractual obligations without just compensation being provided first. Justice Field dissented and argued that while he agreed with much of what had been said by his colleagues on this issue, he disagreed with their conclusion because there were no contracts involved here; rather, all parties had simply entered into agreements regarding how they would be paid out if and when a dissolution occurred due to insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings initiated by creditors or shareholders alike. He also noted that such statutes have long been upheld in other jurisdictions and should therefore be given deference here as well since they are designed primarily for protecting creditors’ rights against those who might otherwise seek to take advantage of them during times of financial distress or uncertainty within corporations themselves